D A 0 8

- 0 4 9 9

I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U

R T O F T H E S T

A T E O F M O N T

A N A

2 0 1 0 M T 1 6 6

S T A T E O F M O N T

A N A

,

P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l e e

,

v

.

D A V I D W

. G U

N D E R S O N

,

D e f e n d a n t a n d A

p p e l l a n t

.

APPEAL FROM: District Court o f the Thirteenth Judicial District,

I n a n d F o r t h e C o u

n t y o f Y e l l o w s t o n e

, C a

u s e N o

. D C 0 7

- 0 6 3 2

H o n o r a b l e G r e g o r

y R

. T o d d

, P r e s i d i

n g J u d g e

C O U N S E L O F R E C O R D :

F o r A p p e l l a n t :

J o s l y n H u n t

, C h i e f A p p e l l a t e D e f

e n d e r

, S a r a h C h a s e R o s a r i o y N a b e r ( a r g u e d )

, A s s i s t a n t A p p e l l a t e D e f e n d e r

, H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

F o r A p p e l l e e :

S t e v e B u l l o c k

, M o n t a n a A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

, T a m m y K

. P l

u b e l l ( a r g u e d )

, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r

n e y G e n e r a l

, H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

D e n n i s P a x i

n o s

, Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t

y A t t o r n e y

, A n n M a r i e M c K i

t t r i c k

, D e p u t y C o u

n t y A t t o r n e y

, B i l l i n g s

, M o n t a n a

A r g u e d a n d S u b m i

t t e d : M a y 1 4

, 2 0 1 0

D e c i d e d : J u l

y 2 7

, 2 0 1 0

F i l e d :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C l e r k July 27 20102

J u s t i c e J a m e s C

. N e l s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t

.

¶ 1 A f t e r a j u r y t r i a l i n Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t y

, D a v i d G u n d e r s o n w a s c o n v

i c t e d o f

b u r g l a r y a n d a t t e m

p t e d s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e

T h i r t e e n t h J

u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t d e t e r m

i n e d t h a t G u n d e r s o n w a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r ;

h e n c e t h e c o u r

t s e n t e n c e d h i m t o 1 0 0 y e a r s i n p r i s o n o n t h e b u r g l a r y c h a r g

e a l o n g w i t h a

c o n s e c u t i v

e t e r m o f l i f

e i n p r i s o n o n t h e c h a r g

e o f a t t e m

p t e d s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u

t

c o n s e n t

. B o t

h s e n t e n c e s a r e t o b e s e r v

e d w i t h o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r o l e

. G u n d e r s o n

a p p e a l s h i s c o n v

i c t i o n a n d s e n t e

n c e

. W e a f

f i r m i n p a r t

, r e v

e r s e i n p a r t

, a n d r e m a n d f o r

f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s O p i n i o n

.

¶ 2 Gunderson raises nine issues on appeal which we have restated as follows :

¶ 3 1

. W

h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n s e n t e n c i n g G u n d e r s o n t o b o t h l i f

e

i m p r i s o n m e n t o n t h e c h a r g e o f a t t e m

p t e d s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u

t c o n s e n t a

n d a t e r m

o f 1 0 0 y e a r s a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r o n t h e b u r g

l a r y c h a r g

e

.

¶4 2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Gunderson’s conviction on

the charge of att empted sexual intercourse without consent.

¶ 5 3. Whether Gunderson’s trial counsel provided effective assistance.

¶ 6 4. Whether Gunderson was entitled to a jury instruction on missing evidence.

¶ 7 5. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Gu nderson’s

motion for a mistrial after a prospective juror ’s comments inadvertently indicated that

Gunderson had been in jail.

¶ 8 6

. W

h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d w h e n i t f a i l e d t o r e m o v

e a p r o s p e c t i v

e j u r o r

f o r c a u s e

.3

¶ 9 7. Whether the District Court erred when it declined to give a jury instruction

specifying that Gunderson’s testimony should be treated the same as any other witness.

¶ 1 0 8. Whether the District Court erred in instructing the jury on the definitions of

“purposely” and “knowingly.”

¶ 1 1 9. Whether t

he District Court erred in imposing 51 conditions as part of

Gunderson’s sentence in the event he is ever released to the community.

¶ 1 2 M

. R

. A

p p

. P

. 1 2 ( 1 ) ( f

) r e q u i r e s t h a

t p a r t i e s c i t e t o r e l e v

a n t a u t h o r i t i e s a n d s t a t

u t e s

i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r a r g

u m e n t s o n a p p e a l

. I

n t h i s c a s e

, o t

h e r t h a n c i t i n g t o t h e N i n t

h

C i r c u i t C o u r t M o d e l C r i m i n a l J u r y I n s t r u c t i o n s f r o m w h i c h G u n d e r s o n o b t a i n e d t

h e

i n s t r u c t i o n a t i s s u e

, G u n d e r s o n f

a i l e d t o c i t e t o a

n y s t a t u t e s o r c a s e l a w i n s u p p o r t o f h i s

a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d h a v e g i v e n a j u r y i n s t r

u c t i o n s p e c i f

y i n g t h a t h i s

t e s t i m o n y s h o u l d b e t r e a t e d t h e s a m e a s a n y o t h e r w i t n e s s ( I s s u e 7 )

. W e h a v e r e p e a t e d l y

h e l d t h a t i t i s n o t t

h i s C o u r t ’ s o b l i g

a t i o n t o c o n d u c t l e g

a l r e s e a r c h o n b e h a

l f o f a p a r t y o r

to develop leg

a l a n a l y s i s t h a t m

i g h t s u p p o r t a p a r

t y ’ s p o s i t i o n

. S

t a t e v

. C y b u l s k i , 2009

M T 7 0

, ¶ 1 3

, 3 4 9 M o n t

. 4 2 9

, 2 0 4 P

. 3 d 7 ( c i t i n g State v. Torgerson , 2008 MT 303, ¶ 36,

3 4 5 M o n t

. 5 3 2

, 1 9 2 P

. 3 d 6 9 5 )

. C o n s e q u e n t l y

, b e c a u s e o f G

u n d e r s o n ’ s i n a d e q u a

t e

b r i e f i n g o n I s s u e 7

, w e d e c l i n e t o c o n s i d e r h i s a r g u m e n t s o n t h a

t i s s u e

.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 1 3 O n J

u l y 3

, 2 0 0 7

, a t a r o u n d 2 : 0 0 a

. m

. , S t e p h a n i e R a n d a l l w a l k e d h o m e t o h e r

a p a r t m e n t a f

t e r a n e v

e n i n g o f d r i n k i n g w i t h f r i e n d s a t t h e n e a r

b y R a i n b o w B a r i n

B i l l i n g s

. W

h e n s h e a r r i v

e d h o m e

, s h e w e n t t o h e r k i t c h e n t o m a k e h e r s e l f s o m e t h i n g t o

e a t

. G u n d e r s o n

, w

h o was hanging out in the area near Randall ’ s a p a r t m e n t d r i n k i n g w i t h4

a f r i e n d

, l a t e r t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e t h o u g

h t h e r e c o g

n i z e d R a n d a l l f

r o m t h e b a r s o h e k

n o c k e d

o n h e r d o o r

. W

h e n R a n d a l l a n s w e r e d t h e d o o r

, G u n d e r s o n a s k e d t o u s e h e r t e l e p h o n e

.

R a n d a l l l i e d a

n d t o l d h i m s h e d i d n o t h a v e a p h o n e a n d s h u

t t h e d o o r

. R a n d a l l returned to

her cooking and after finishing her food, she shut off the lights in her ap artment and went

to her bedroom to sleep.

¶ 1 4 A b o u t a h a l f a n h o u r a f

t e r R a n d a l l t u r

n e d o f f h e r l i g h t s

, G u n d e r s o n a g

a i n w e n t t o

h e r d o o r t o t a l k t o h e r

. G u n d e r s o n t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e f

o u n d R a n d a l l ’ s d o o r s l i g

h t l y a j a r

, s o

h e s t e p p e d i n s i d e

. H o w e v e r

, R a n d a l l t e s t i f

i e d t h a t s h e h a

d s h u t t h e d o o r b u t s h e c o u l d n o t

r e m e m b e r w h e t h e r s h e h a d locked it. After entering Randall ’ s a p a r t m e n t

, G u n d e r s o n

c a l l e d o u t a s k i n g w

h e t h e r a n y o n e w a s h o m e

. H e c l a i m e d h e h e a r d w h a t s o u n d e d l i k e a

v o i c e c o m i n g f

r o m t h e b a c k o f t h e a

p a r t m e n t s o h e f

o l l o w e d t h e v o i c e

.

¶ 1 5 R a n d a l l w a s a s l e e p o n t h e b e d

, p a r t i a l l y c o v e r e d b y a s h e e t w i t h h e r b a c k t o t h e

d o o r w a y

. B e c a u s e o f t h e h e a t

, R a n d a l l w a s w e a r i n g o n l y h e r b o t t o m u n d e r w e a r

.

Gunderson testified that he sat down on the edge of the bed to talk with her. Randall

testified that she “woke up to somebody getting in my bed and touching me and kissing

m e

. ” S h e s a i d t h a t t h e p e r s o n

, w h o m s h e l a t e r i d e n t i f

i e d a s G u n d e r s o n

, k i s s e d h e r o n h e r

n e c k a n d t h a t h e w a s r

u b b i n g h e r t h i g

h

. S h e a l s o s a i d t h a t G

u n d e r s o n t r i e d t o p u l l h e r

u n d e r w e a r o f

f

, b u t s h e w a s a b l e t o g

r a b h i s h a n d t o s t o p h i m

. R a n d a l l f u r t h e r t e s t i f

i e d

t h a t G u n d e r s o n p i n

n e d h e r a r m s d o w

n o n t h e b e d

, b u t a f

t e r s e v e r a l m i n u t e s o f s t r

u g g l i n g

w i t h h i m

, s h e w a s a b l e t o g e t u p a n d t u r

n o n t h e b e d r o o m l i g h t

. O n c e t h e l i g

h t s w e r e o n

,

s h e r e c o g n i z e d G u n d e r s o n a s t h e m a n w

h o h a d a s k e d t o u s e h e r t e l e p h o n e e a r l i e r t h a t

n i g h t

. S h e a l s o n o t i c e d t

h a t G u n d e r s o n w a s n o t w e a r i n g h i s s h i r t o r h i s s h o e s

.5

¶ 1 6 R a n d a l l g

r a b b e d G u n d e r s o n ’ s s h o e s

, t

h r e w t h e m o u t h e r f

r o n t d o o r

, a

n d o r d e r e d

G u n d e r s o n t o g

e t o u t

. S h e t e s t i f

i e d t h a t w

h e n s h e w e n t t o o p e n t

h e d o o r

, i t w a s l o c k e d

,

s o s h e s u r m i s e d t h a t i f G u n d e r s o n h a

d c o m e i n t h r o u g

h t h e f r o n t d o o r

, h e h a d l o c k e d i t

b e h i n d h i m

. O n h i s w a y o u t t h e d o o r

, G u n d e r s o n d r

o p p e d h i s s h i r t

. W

h e n h e w e n

t b a c k

to pick it up, Randall grabbed him by the hair and tried to drag him out of the apartment.

In the process, she scratched his neck.

¶ 1 7 O n c e s h e w a s a b l e t o g e t G u n d e r s o n o u t o f h e r a p a r t m e n t

, R a n d a l l c a l l e d 9 1 1 t o

r e p o r t t h e i n c i d e n

t

. O f f i c e r S h a w

n W i c h m a n r e s p o n d e d t o h e r c a l l

. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t

when he arrived to interview Randall, she was very distraught and visibly shaking, but

s h e d i d n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e a n y i n j u r i e s

. A l t h o u g

h O f f i c e r W i c h m a n e x a m

i n e d R a n d a l l ’ s

b e d

, h e d i d n o t c o l l e c t h e r b e d d i n g o r u n d e r w e a r a s e v i d e n c e

. O f f i c e r W i c h m a n

t r a n s p o r t e d R a n d a l l t o t

h e B i l l i n g s P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t w h e r e a d e t e c t i v

e t o o k s a m

p l e s o f

t h e d r i e d b l o o d o n h e r h a n d a n d u n d e r h e r f

i n g e r n a i l s

. T h i s b l o o d e v

i d e n c e w a s s e n t t o

the Montana Crime Lab where it was tested and eventually identified as belonging to

Gunderson.

¶ 1 8 Officer Brad Ross , responding to a dispatch that a burglary suspect had fled the

scene, e n c o u n

t e r e d G u n d e r s o n w a l k i n g a f

e w b l o c k s f

r o m R a n d a l l ’ s a p a r t m e n t w i t h

a n o t h e r m a n

. B a s e d o n t h e p h y s i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n g i v e n b y R a n d a l l a

n d t h e f a c t t h a t

G u n d e r s o n h a

d s c r a t c h m a r k s o n h i s n e c k w i t h f r e s h

, w e t b l o o d

, O f

f i c e r R o s s s t o p p e d

G u n d e r s o n

. G

u n d e r s o n c o n s e n

t e d t o a p o r t a

b l e b r e a t h t e s t w h i c h i n d i c a t e d a b l o o d

a l c o h o l c o n

t e n t o f 0

. 0 8 6

. O f

f i c e r R o s s a r r e s t e d G

u n d e r s o n f

o r v i o l a t i n g h i s p a r o l e

. A f t e r

O f f i c e r R o s s a d v

i s e d h i m o f h i s M

i r a n d a r i g

h t s

, G u n d e r s o n a g

r e e d t o b e i n

t e r v i e w e d

.6

G u n d e r s o n i n i t i a l l y s t a t e d t h a t h e r e c e i v e d t h e s c r a t c h m a r k s d u r i n g a f i g h t a t t h e C r y s t a l

L o u n g e a n d t h a t h e h a d b e e

n a s k e d t o l e a v

e t h e C r y s t a l L o u

n g e b y o n e o f t h e s t a f

f

. H e

a l s o s t a t e d t

h a t h e h a d a r r i v

e d a t t h e C r y s t a l L o u n g

e t h a t n i g h t b y t a x i a n d t h a

t h e h a d

j u m p e d o u t o f t h e t a x i w i t h o u t p a y i n g

. G u n d e r s o n d e

n i e d e n t e r i n g a n y r e s i d e n c e s

w i t h o u t a u t h o r i z a t i o n a n d s t a t e d t

h a t h i s D N A w o u l d n o t b e p r e s e n t a t t h e crime scene.

¶ 1 9 On July 19, 2007, the State charged Gunderson by Information with burglary and

attempted sexual intercourse without consent. The burglary charge alleged that

Gun derson unlawfully entered Randall’s apartment with the purpose to commit sexual

assault. The attempted sexual intercourse without consent charge alleged that Gunderson

“climbed into [Randall’s] bed, tried to pull her underwear down, and kissed her neck

wh ile she slept” with the purpose to commit sexual intercourse without consent.

¶ 2 0 T h e O f

f i c e o f t h e P u b l i c D e f

e n d e r e v e n t u a l l y a s s i g

n e d R o b e r t K e l l e

h e r t o

r e p r e s e n t G

u n d e r s o n

. O n O c t o b e r 1 9

, 2 0 0 7

, t h e S t a t e f i l e d a notice of intent to seek

G u n d e r s o n ’ s d e s i g

n a t i o n a s a p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r

. T h e S t a t e a l s o f i l e d a J u s t

notice seeking to use Gunderson’s 1994 c onviction for sexual intercourse without

consent. Although the District Court granted the State’s request, the State did not

introduce any evidenc e at trial regarding Gunderson’s prior convictions.

¶ 2 1 On Februa ry 15, 2008, Gunderson filed a Motion to D ismiss for Loss of E vidence

arguing that because the p o l i c e f a i l e d t o c o l l e c t R a n d a

l l ’ s b e d d i n g a n d f

a i l e d t o p e r f

o r m a

r a p e e x a m i n a t i o n o f R a n d a l l

, t h e c a s e s h o u l d b e d i s m i s s e d

. G u n d e r s o n c o n

t e n d e d t h a

t

t h e b e d d i n g w o u l d h a v e s h o w n a n a b s e n c e o f f

i g h t i n g o r r e s i s t a n c e a n d t h e r a p e7

examination would have shown that Randall did not have any bruises. The Distric t Court

denied the motion.

¶ 2 2 T h e t r i a l i n t h i s c a s e b e g a n o n F e b r

u a r y 1 9

, 2 0 0 8

. D u r i n g v o i r d i r e

, o n e o f t h e

p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s

, D a v i d T h o r s o n

, i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e w o r k e d a t t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t y

D e t e n t i o n F a c i l i t y

. W

h e n a s k e d b y t h e p r o s e c u t o r i f h e k n e w G u n d e r s o n

, T h o r s o n

r e s p o n d e d t

h a t h e d i d

. B a s ed on this exchange, Gunderson moved for a mistrial on the

ground s t h a t T h o r s o n ’ s c o m

m e n t s h a d t a i n

t e d t h e j u r y p o o l b y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t G u n d e r s o n

h a d b e e n i n j a i l o r w a s c u r r e n t l y i n j a i l

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n a n d t

h e

State subsequently us ed one of its p er emptory challenges to remove Thorson from the

jury panel.

¶ 2 3 Also d uring voir dire, another juror, Denise Jensen, expressed the opinion that she

would “probably have more of a bias that [Gunderson] is [guilty] simply because he’s

c h a r g e d

. ” K e l l e h e r q u e s t i o n e d J e n s e n a t l e n g t h r e g a r d i n g t h i s s t a t e m e n t a n d J e n s e n

e v e n t u a l l y i n d i c a t e d t

h a t s h e t h o u g h t s h e c o u l d b e f

a i r

. K e l l e h e r d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e J e n s e n

f o r c a u s e a n d

, i n s t e a d

, r e m o v e d h e r w i t h a p e r e m

p t o r y c h a l l e n g

e

.

¶ 2 4 On the second day of trial, Gunderson requested to speak with the judge regarding

K e l l e h e r ’ s p e r f

o r m a n c e

, s o t h e j u d g

e m e t w i t h G

u n d e r s o n a

n d K e l l e h e r i n c h a m

b e r s

.

G u n d e r s o n e x

p r e s s e d h i s c o n c e r n s t h a t K e l l e h e r f a i l e d t o p r

o p e r l y i m p e a c h R a n d a l l w i t h

h e r p r i o r s t a t e m e n t s ; f

a i l e d t o i n v

e s t i g a t e a n d c a l l a s a w i t n e s s t h e d r i v e r o f t h e t a x i t h a

t

d r o v e G u n d e r s o n t o t

h e C r y s t a l L o u n g

e o r t h e b o u

n c e r t h a t k i c k e d G

u n d e r s o n o u

t o f t h e

C r y s t a l L o u n g

e ; f a i l e d t o c o m

m u n i c a t e w i t h G

u n d e r s o n i n a t i m e l y m a n n e r ; f a i l e d t o a l e r

t

Gunderson that the S t a t e h a d p h o t o s s h o w i n g b l o o d o n R a n d a l l ’ s h a n d ; a n d f a i l e d t o c a l l8

Gunderson’s nephe w as a witness regarding the taxi and the events at the Crystal Lounge.

G u n d e r s o n i n d i c a t e d t

h a t a l t h o u g h h e h a d n o t b r o u g

h t t h i s t o t

h e c o u r t ’ s a t t e n t i o n

p r e v i o u s l y

, h e h a d b e e n e x p r e s s i n g h i s c o n c e r n s t o K e l l e h e r f o r s e v e r a l m o n t h s

, a n d h e

had written several letters to the Office of the Public Defender.

¶ 2 5 K e l l e h e r r e s p o n d e d t h a t h e w a s s t i l l a t t e m

p t i n g t o l o c a t e a b o u n c e r a t t h e C r y s t a l

L o u n g e w h o m i g h t r e c o g n i z e G u n d e r s o n

, a s well as a taxi driver who may have given

Gunderson a ride there. With respect to his cross examination of Randall, Kelleher

expressed his understanding that Gunderson’s main concern was that Kelle he r did not

a t t e m p t t o i m p e a c h R a n d a l l ’ s t e s t i m o n y t h a t G u n d e r s o n h a

d p u l l e d o n e s i d e o f h e r

u n d e r w e a r d o w

n s e v e r a l i n c h e s w i t h h e r p r i o r s t a t e m e n t t h a t s h e h a d m a d e s u r e h e r

u n d e r w e a r s t ayed on and were not pulled off

. Kelleher opined that any inconsistency

b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o s t a t e m e n t s w a s “ de minimis .”

¶ 2 6 W h e n t h e j u d g

e a s k e d G

u n d e r s o n w

h a t h e w a n

t e d t h e c o u r t t o d o a t t h i s s t a g e i n

t h e p r o c e e d i n g s

, G

u n d e r s o n r e s p o n d e d t h a

t h e d i d n o t w a n t t o w a i v e a n y o f h i s r i g

h t s b u t

t h a t h e f e l t K e l l e h e r w a s i n e f

f e c t i v e

. T h e j u d g

e s t a t e d t h a

t h e w a s n o t g

o i n g t o r e p l a c e

c o u n s e l o r d e c l a r e a m

i s t r i a l

. I n s t e a d

, h e s a i d t h a t

, a l t h o u g h h e w o u l d “ s t r o n g

l y u r g e ”

G u n d e r s o n n o t t o

, h e w o u l d a l l o w G u n d e r s o n t o r e p r e s e n

t h i m s e l f a n d k e e p K e l l e h e r o n

a s s t a n d b y counsel . After further discussion regarding Kelleher ’ s a t t e m p t t o l o c a

t e

w i t n e s s e s

, t h e j u d g

e d e c l i n e d t o r e m o v

e K e l l e h e r a s c o u n s e l a n d a g r e e d t o a l l o w t

h e

d e f e n s e a d d i t i o n a l t i m e t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n t h e e v e n t G u n d e r s o n w a s a b l e t o l o c a t e

p o t e n t i a l w i t n e s s e s

.9

¶ 2 7 A f t e r t r i a l r e s u m e d

, t h e S t a t e c a l l e d a s a w i t n e s s t h e b o u n c e r w h o w a s w o r k i n g a t

t h e C r y s t a l L o u n g

e t h e n i g h t o f t h e a l l e g

e d i n c i d e n t

. H e t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e d i d n o t

r e m e m b e r k i c k i n g G

u n d e r s o n o r a n y o n e e l s e o u t o f t h e b a r t h a

t n i g h t

. T h e S t a t e a l s o

i n t r o d u c e d t e s t i m o n y f

r o m t h e o w

n e r s o f t h e t w o t a x i c o m

p a n i e s i n B i l l i n g s

. T h e y b o t h

t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e i r c o m p a n y r e c o r d s d i d n o t i n d i c a t e a n y o n e b e i n g d r o p p e d o f f a t t h e

C r y s t a l L o u n g

e d u r i n g t h e n i g

h t a n d t i m e i n q u e s t i o n

, n o r d i d t h e i r r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e a n y

u n p a i d f a r e s t h a t n i g

h t

. Following the close of the Stat e ’ s c a s e

- i n

- c h i e f

, K e l l e h e r m o v

e d

t o d i s m i s s f o r i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n

.

¶ 2 8 Gunderson was the only witness to testify in his defense. He admitted that he had

b e e n i n R a

n d a l l ’ s a p a r t m e n t a n d t

h a t h i s s t a t e m e n t t

h a t h e h a d b e e n i n j u r e d i n a b a r f

i g h t

w a s u n t r u e

. G u n d e r s o n m a i n t a i n e d

, h o w e v e r

, t h a t t h e r e s t o f h i s s t o r y r e g

a r d i n g t h e t a x i

r i d e a n d b e i n g k i c k e d o u t o f t h e b a r

, w a s t r u e

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t m a d e n o f u r t h e r i n q u i r y

o f K e l l e h e r r e g

a r d i n g w h y n o n e o f t h e w i t n e s s e s i d e n t i f i e d a n d r e q

u e s t e d b y G

u n d e r s o n

were called.

¶ 2 9 During the settling of jury instructions, Kelleher did not object to any of the

State’s offered instructions. Kelleher did offer two instructions that were opposed by the

State

. T he first of these instructions sought to instruct the jurors to treat defendant’s

testimony “just as you would the testimony of any other witness.” The second instruction

sought to instruct the jurors that they could infer from the State’s failure to preserve

Randall’s be dding and to perform a rape examination of Randall, that this missing

e v i d e n c e w o u l d h a v

e b e e n a d v

e r s e t o t h e S t a t e ’ s c a s e

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c l i n e d t o

g i v e e i t h e r o f t h e s e i n s t r

u c t i o n s

.1 0

¶ 3 0 T h e j u r y r e t u r

n e d a v e r d i c t o f g

u i l t y o n e a c h c o u n

t

. T h e r e a f

t e r

, K e l l e h e r f

i l e d a

m o t i o n f o r a n e w t r i a l a r g

u i n g t h a t a n e w t r i a l w a s w a r r a n t e d b e c a u s e of the court ’s

refusal to give Gunderson’s two pro posed jury instructions, the prospective juror’s

comments indicating that Gunders on had been in jail, and t h e S t a t e ’ s f a i l u r e t o p r e s e n

t

s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a c o n v

i c t i o n

. A f

t e r h e a r i n g o r a l a r g

u m e n t

, t h e c o u r t d e n i e d

t h e m o t i o n

.

¶ 3 1 A t s e n t e n c i n g

, K e l l e h e r r a i s e d s e v e r a l f a c t u a l d i s a g

r e e m e n t s w i t h t h e p r e s e n t e n c e

i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t ( P S I ) o f G u n d e r s o n ’ s c r i m

i n a l h i s t o r y

, b u t m a d e n o o t h e r o b j e c t i o n s

t o t h e s e n t e

n c e o r i t s c o n d i t i o n s

. T h e P S I n o t e d t h a t t h e i n s t a n

t o f f e n s e o c c u r r e d o n l y s i x

w e e k s a f t e r G u n d e r s o n w a s r e l e a s e d f r o m p r i s o n t o s e r v

e t h e s u s p e n d e d p o r

t i o n o f h i s

1 9 9 4 s e n t e n c e o n a r a p e c o n v i c t i o n

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t G

u n d e r s o n w a s a

p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r a n d s e n t e

n c e d h i m t o 1 0 0 y e a r s i n p r i s o n o n t h e b u r g l a r y

c h a r g e a n d a c o n s e c u t i v

e t e r m o f l i f

e i n p r i s o n o n t

h e c h a r g e o f a t t e m

p t e d s e x u a l

i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t

, b o t h t o b e s e r v

e d w i t h o u

t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r o l e

. T h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o d e s i g n a t e d G u n d e r s o n a L e v

e l 3 s e x u a l l y v i o l e n t o f f e n d e r b a s e d o n

t h e r e c o m

m e n d a t i o n s i n t h e p s y c h o s e x u a l e v a l u a t i o n i n t h e P S I

. I

n i t s w r i t t e n j u d g m e n t

f i l e d A u g u s t 2 7

, 2 0 0 8

, t h e c o u r t i m posed 51 conditions on Gunderson should he ever be

released to the community.

¶ 3 2 G u n d e r s o n n o w a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n

t e n c e

.

Issue 1.

¶ 3 3 W h e t h e r t h e D i s t

r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n s e n t e n c i n g G u n d e r

s o n t o b o t h l i

f e

i m p r i s o n m e n t o n t h e c h a r g e o f a t t e m p t e d s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r

s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t a n d a

t e r m o f 1 0 0 y e a r

s a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r o n t

h e b u r g l a r y c h a r g e

.1 1

¶ 3 4 I n i m p o s i n g s e n t e n c e o n t

h e b u r g l a r y c h a r g

e

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e x

p l a i n e d t h a

t

w h i l e a c o n v

i c t i o n f o r b u r g l a r y n o r m a l l y c a r r i e s a 2 0

- y e a r m a x i m u m p e n a l t y

, b e c a u s e

Gunderson was designated a persistent felony offender , the court intended to sentence

h i m t o 1 0 0 y e a r s o n t h a t c h a r g e p u r s u a n t t o § 4 6

- 1 8

- 5 0 2

, M C A

. I n a d d i t i o n

, o n t

h e

c h a r g e o f a t t e m p t e d s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t

, t h e c o u r t s e n

t e n c e d G u n d e r s o n t o

l i f e i n p r i s o n w i t h o u

t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r o l e

. T h e c o u r t r e m a r k e d t h a

t i t h a d n e v

e r s e e n

a d e f e n d a n t m o r e d e s e r v

i n g o f a l i f

e s e n t e n c e t h a n G

u n d e r s o n a n d c o n c l u d e d :

I d e s i g n a t e y o u a L e v

e l 3 s e x o f

f e n d e r

, t h a t ’ s t h e h i g

h e s t l e v e l

. I

b e l i e v e t h a t y o u r p a s t a c t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t i f t h e r e w a s a n y c h a n c e t h a t y o u

w o u l d g e t o u t o f p r i s o n

, i t w o u l d v i r t u a l l y g u a r a n t e e t h a t t

h e r e w o u l d b e

m o r e v i c t i m s

, a n d I w i l l n o t b e a p a r t y t o t h a t

. A n d t h i s c o m m

u n i t y

, o r a n y

c o m m u n i t y

, i n t h i s c a s e

, o r i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s s h o u l d n o t h a v e t o b e subjected to more of your crimes.

¶ 3 5 G u n d e r s o n c o n t e

n d s o n a p p e a

l t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n i m p o s i n g s e n t e n c e

b e c a u s e o n c e t

h e c o u r t d e s i g

n a t e d h i m a p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r a n d s e n t e n c e d h i m t o

1 0 0 y e a r s i n p r i s o n o n t h e b u r g l a r y c h a r g

e

, i t c o u l d n o t a l s o s e n t e n c e h i m t o a l i f e

s e n t e n c e o n t h e c h a r g

e o f a t t e m

p t e d s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t

. G u n d e r s o n

a r g u e s t h a t p u r s u a n

t t o t h i s C o u r t ’ s h o l d i n g i n State v. Gaither

, 2 0 0 9 M T 3 9 1

, ¶ 5 4

, 3 5 3

M o n t

. 3 4 4

, 2 2 0 P

. 3 d 6 4 0

, w h e n a d e f e n d a n t h a s b e e n c o n v

i c t e d o f m

u l t i p l e f e l o n i e s i n a

single proceeding, and the defendant is being sentenced as a persistent felony offender

,

“the plain language of § 48

- 16

- 502(2), MCA, prohibit[s] a term of imprisonment of more

t han 100 years.” Thus, Gunderson maintains that p u r s u a n t t o t h i s C o u r t ’ s h o l d i n g i n

G a i t h e r

, h i s s e n t e n c e i s i l l e g a l a n d m

u s t b e r e m a n d e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r

r e s e n t e n c i n g

.1 2

¶ 3 6 T h e S t a t e a r g

u e s o n t h e o t h e r h a n d t h a t w e s h o u l d r e v i s i t o u r h o l d i n g i n G a i t h e r

b e c a u s e i t c o n f

l i c t s w i t h o u r p r i o r p r e c e d e n t o n s e n t e

n c i n g p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r s

.

T h e S t a t e c o n t e n d s t

h a t o u r h o l d i n g i n G a i t

h e r t h a t a p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r m a y n o t

b e s e n t e n c e d t o m o r e t h a n 1 0 0 y e a r s l e a d s t o t h e u n j u s t r e s u l t o f s u b

j e c t i n g n o n

- p e r s i s t e n t

f e l o n y o f f e n d e r s t o g

r e a t e r s e n t e n c e s t h a

n p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r s

.

A. Standard of Review

¶ 3 7 W e c l a r i f

i e d o u r s t a

n d a r d o f r e v

i e w f o r c r i m i n a l s e n t e n c e s i n S t

a t e v

. H e r d

, 2 0 0 4

M T 8 5

, 3 2 0 M o n t

. 4 9 0

, 8 7 P

. 3 d 1 0 1 7

. W e h e l d i n H e r d

, t h a t i f t h e o f f e n d e r i s s t a t u t o r i l y

e l i g i b l e f o r s e n t e n c e r e v i e w

, w e w i l l r e v i e w t h e s e n t e n c e f o r l e g a l i t y o n l y

. Herd

, ¶ 2 2

.

I f

, h o w e v e r

, t h e o f f e n d e r i s s t a t u t o r i l y i n e l i g i b l e f o r s e n t e n c e r e v

i e w

, t h e n w e w i l l u t i l i z e

t h e t w o

- t i e r e d a p p r o a c h w h i c h w e e m

p l o y e d p r i o r t o t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e S e n t e n c e R e v i e w

D i v i s i o n

. I

n o t h e r w o r d s

, w e w i l l r e v i e w s u c h s e n t e n c e s f o r b o t h l e g

a l i t y a n d a b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n

. Herd , ¶ 22.

¶ 3 8 I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e

, b e c a u s e G u n d e r s o n w a s s e n t e n c e d t o m o r e t h a n o n e y e a r o f

a c t u a l i n c a r c e r a t i o n

, h e i s s t a t u t o r i l y e l i g i b l e f o r s e n t e n c e r e v

i e w

. See § 4 6

- 1 8

- 9 0 3

,

M C A

. C o n s e q u e

n t l y

, w e w i l l r e v i e w h i s s e n t e n c e f o r l e g a l i t y o n l y

.

B. Discussion

¶ 3 9 We find persuasive the State ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t o u r h o l d i n g i n G a i t h e r l e a d s t o t h e

u n j u s t r e s u l t o f s u b

j e c t i n g n o n

- p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r s t o g

r e a t e r s e n t e n c e s t h a n

p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r s

. C o n s e q u e n t l y

, w e u s e t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e v

i s i t o u r d e c i s i o n

i n G a i t h e r

, a n d t o c l a r i f

y t h e p r o p e r p r

o c e d u r e f o r s e n t e n c i n g p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r s

.1 3

¶ 4 0 G a i t h e r w a s s e n t e n c e d t o t e n y e a r s i n M o n t a n a S t a t e P r i s o n ( M S P ) o n a c h a r g e o f

c r i m i n a l e n d a n g

e r m e n t

, a n d 8 5 y e a r s i n M S P o n a c h a r g e o f a t t e m

p t e d s e x u a l a b u s e o f

c h i l d r e n

. G a i t h e r w a s a l s o d e s i g n a t e d a p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r a n d s e n t e

n c e d t o a n

a d d i t i o n a l 5 0 years in MSP with ten suspended. Gaither , ¶ 1.

¶ 4 1 O n a p p e a l

, G a i t h e r d i d n o t d i s p u t e h i s d e s i g

n a t i o n a s a p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r

.

I n s t e a d

, h e a r g

u e d t h a t t h e m a x i m

u m s e n t e n c e h e c o u l d r e c e i v e a s a p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y

o f f e n d e r w a s 1 0 0 y e a r s

. H e n c e

, h e a r g u e d t h a t h i s s e n t e n c e

, w

h i c h t o t a l e d 1 3 5 y e a r s

, was

c o n t r a r y t o § 4 6

- 1 8

- 5 0 2

, M C A

, 1 and, therefore, illegal. Gaither

, ¶ 5 1

.

1 S e c t i o n 4 6

- 1 8

- 5 0 2

, M C A

, r e a d s a s f o l l o w s :

S e n t e n c i n g o f p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r

. ( 1 ) E x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d

i n 4 6

- 1 8

- 2 1 9 a n d s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) o f t h i s s e c t i o n

, a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r

s h a l l b e i m

p r i s o n e d i n t h e s t a

t e p r i s o n f

o r a t e r m o f n o t l e s s t h a n 5 y e a r s o r

m o r e t h a n 1 0 0 y e a r s o r s h a l l b e f i n e d a n a m o u n t n o t t o e x c e e d $ 5 0

, 0 0 0

, o r

b o t h

, i f t h e o f

f e n d e r w a s 2 1 y e a r s o f a g e o r o l d e r a t t h e t i m e o f t h e

c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e p r e s e n t o f

f e n s e

. ( 2 ) E x c e p t a s p r o v

i d e d i n 4 6

- 1 8

- 2 1 9

, a n o f

f e n d e r s h a l l b e i m

p r i s o n e d

i n a s t a t e p r i s o n f

o r a t e r m o f n o t l e s s t h a n 1 0 y e a r s o r m o r e t h a n 1 0 0 y e a r s

o r s h a l l b e f

i n e d a n a m o u n t n o t t o e x c e e d $ 5 0

, 0 0 0

, o r b o t h

, i f : ( a ) t h e o f

f e n d e r w a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r

, a s d e f

i n e d i n

4 6

- 18

- 5 0 1

, a t t h e t i m e o f t h e o f f e n d e r ’ s p r e v

i o u s f e l o n y c o n v

i c t i o n ; ( b ) l e s s t h a

n 5 y e a r s h a v

e e l a p s e d b e t w e e n t

h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e

p r e s e n t o f

f e n s e a n d : (i) the previous felony conviction; or

( i i ) t h e o f

f e n d e r ’ s r e l e a s e o n p a r o l e

, f r o m p r i s o n

, o r f

r o m o t h e r

c o m m i t m e n t i m p o s e d a s a r e s u l t o f t h e p r e v i o u s f e l o n y c o n v

i c t i o n ; a n d

( c ) t h e o f

f e n d e r w a s 2 1 y e a r s o f a g e o r o l d e r a t t h e t i m e o f t h e

c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e p r e s e n t o f

f e n s e

. ( 3 ) E x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n 4 6

- 1 8

- 2 2 2

, t h e i m p o s i t i o n o r e x e c u t i o n o f

t h e f i r s t 5 y e a r s o f a s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n ( 1 ) o f t h i s s e c t i o n

o r t h e f i r s t 1 0 y e a r s o f a s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) o f t h i s

s e c t i o n m a y n o t b e d e f

e r r e d o r s u s p e n d e d

. ( 4 ) A n y s e n t e n c e i m

p o s e d u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) m u s t r u n

c o n s e c u t i v

e l y t o a n y o t

h e r s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d

.1 4

¶ 4 2 T h e S t a t e a r g

u e d i n G a i t h e

r t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e a v a i l a b l e u n d e r t h e p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y

o f f e n d e r s t a t u

t e c a n b e a

p p l i e d t o s p e c i f

i c c r i m e s i n o r d e r t o a u g m e n t t h e o v e r a l l s e n t e n c e

a v a i l a b l e f o r a d e f e n d a n t b e i n g s e n t e n c e d f o r m o r e t h a

n o n e f e l o n y

. Gaither

, ¶ 5 2

. W e

d i s a g r e e d

, h o w e v

e r

, a n d h e l d t h a

t o n c e t h e S t a t e o p t s t o s e e k a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r

d e s i g n a t i o n a n d a d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o c e e d s t o i m

p o s e i t

, t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f

§ 4 6

- 1 8

- 5 0 2 ( 2 )

, M C A

, p r o h i b i t s a t e r m o f i m p r i s o n m e n t o f m o r e t h a n 1 0 0 y e a r s

. I n o t h e r

w o r d s

, w e h e l d t

h a t t h e p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r s t a t u

t e s d o n o t g

i v e a d i s t r i c t c o u r t t

h e

a u t h o r i t y t o m

i x a n d m a t c h a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r s e n t e n c e w i t h a n o t h e r f e l o n y

c o n v i c t i o n o c c u r r i n g i n t h e s a m e p r o c e e d i n g

, a n d t o e x c e e d t h e 1 0 0

- y e a r l i m i t f o r

i m p r i s o n m e n t

. Gaither , ¶ 54.

¶ 4 3 I n r e a c h i n g t h i s h o l d i n g i n G a i t h e r , w e i n c o r r e c t l y s t a t e d t h a t w e h a d n o t y e t

c o n s i d e r e d w

h e t h e r § 4 6

- 1 8

- 5 0 2 ( 2 )

, M C A

, p e r m i t t e d a d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o i m p o s e a s e n t e n c e

f o r a t e r m o f i m

p r i s o n m e n t e x c e e d i n g 1 0 0 y e a r s i n c a s e s w h e r e a d e f

e n d a n t i s b e i n g

s e n t e n c e d a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r

, a n d h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f m

u l t i p l e f e l o n i e s i n a

s i n g l e p r o c e e d i n g

. G a ither

, ¶ 5 3

. W e h a d

, i n f a c t

, c o n s i d e r e d t h i s i s s u e i n b o t h S t a t e v

.

W a t s o n

, 2 1 1 M o n

t

. 4 0 1

, 6 8 6 P

. 2 d 8 7 9 ( 1 9 8 4 )

, a n d S t a t e v

. F i t z p a t r i c k

, 2 4 7 M o n t

. 2 0 6

,

8 0 5 P

. 2 d 5 8 4 ( 1 9 9 1 )

. A n d

, e v e n t h o u g h o u r h o l d i n g i n G a i t

h e r w a s c o n t r a r y t o o u r

h o l d i n g s i n b o t h W

a t s o n a n d F i t z p a t r i c k

, w e d i d n o t o v

e r r u l e t h e s e c a s e s

. I

n d e e d

, b o t h o f

t h e s e c a s e s s t a n d a s a l i n e o f a u t h o r i t y c o n t r a r y t o G a i t

h e r

.

¶ 4 4 T h e d e f

e n d a n t i n W

a t s o n w a s c o n v

i c t e d b y a j u r y o f a t t e m p t e d d e l i b e r a

t e

h o m i c i d e

, a g g r a v

a t e d a s s a u l t

, a n d b u r g

l a r y

. T h e c o u r t d e s i g

n a t e d h i m a d a n g

e r o u s

o f f e n d e r a s w e l l a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r

. H e w a s s e n t e n c e d t o 1 0 0 y e a r s1 5

i m p r i s o n m e n t w i t h o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p a r o l e f o r e a c h o f t h e t h r e e f

e l o n y o f f e n s e s

, w i t h

t h e s e n t e n c e s t o r u n c o n s e c u t i v

e l y , for a total sentence of 300 years

. W atson

, 2 1 1 M o n t

.

a t 4 0 4

, 4 0 6

, 6 8 6 P

. 2 d a t 8 8 0

, 8 8 1

. W e s t a t e d i n W a t s o n that W a t s o n ’ s s e n t e n c e o f 3 0 0

y e a r s w a s w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r y m a x i m

u m a l l o w a b l e f

o r a p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r

.

W a t s o n , 211 Mont. at 4 20, 686 P.2d at 889 (citing § 46

- 18

- 502(2), MCA)

.

¶ 4 5 S i m

i l a r l y

, i n F

i t z p a t r i c k

, t h e d e f

e n d a n t w a s b e i n g h e l d i n t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t y

D e t e n t i o n F a c i l i t y p e n d i n g s e n t e n c i n g f o l l o w i n g a p l e a o f g

u i l t y t o d e l i b e r a t e h o m

i c i d e

,

a g g r a v a t e d k i d n a p p i n g

, a n d r o b b e r y

. D e f e n d a n t e s c a p e d f

r o m t h e f a c i l i t y a l o n g w i t h s i x

o t h e r i n m a t e s

. H e w a s r e c a p t u r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g m o r n i n g a f

t e r c o m m i t t i n g a b u r g

l a r y

.

F i t z p a t r i c k , 247 Mont. at 207 , 805 P.2d at 585.

¶ 4 6 A t s e n t e n c i n g

, F i t z p a t r i c k w a s d e s i g n a t e d a p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r

. T h e c o u r

t

s e n t e n c e d h i m t o s e r v

e t e n y e a r s f

o r t h e e s c a p e a n d f

i v e y e a r s f

o r t h e b u r g

l a r y

. T h e c o u r t

a l s o s e n t e n c e d h i m t o a n a d d i t i o n a l 1 0 0 y e a r s f o r e a c h c o n v

i c t i o n a s a p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y

o f f e n d e r . Fitzpatrick appealed these sentences. Fitzpat rick , 247 Mont. at 207 , 805 P.2d

at 585.

¶ 4 7 W e s t a t e d i n Fitzpatrick that § 46

- 18

- 502, MCA, “provides for a maximum term

of 100 years for a persistent felony offender , not an additional term of 100 years . . . .

T h e s e n t e n c i n g p a r a m e t e r s o f § 4 6

- 1 8

- 5 0 2

, M C A

, r e p l a c e t h e m a x i m

u m s e n t e n c e

p r e s c r i b e d f

o r t h e o f f e n s e

. I t i s n o t a s e n t e n c e i n a d d i t i o n t o the sentence for the

o f f e n s e

. ” F i t z p a t r i c k

, 2 4 7 M o n

t

. a t 2 0 8

, 8 0 5 P

. 2 d a t 5 8 6 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. W e a l s o

p o i n t e d o u

t i n F i t z p a t r i c k t h a

t “ t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o u l d h a v e p r o p e r l y s e n t e n c e d1 6

F i t z p a t r i c k t o s e r v

e a m a x i m

u m o f 1 0 0 y e a r s f

o r e s c a p e a n d

100 years for burglary under

§ 46

- 18

- 502, MCA. ” F

i t z p a t r i c k , 247 Mont. at 208, 805 P.2d at 586 (emphasis added).

¶ 4 8 In addition, § 46

- 18

- 5 0 2 ( 4 )

, M C A

, p r o v i d e s t h a t “ [ a ] n y s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d u n d e r

s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) [ r e g

a r d i n g r e p e a t p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r s ] m

u s t r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l

y to

a n y o t h e r s e n t e n c e i m

p o s e d

. [ E m

p h a s i s a d d e d

. ] ” C l e a r l y t h i s s t a t u t e c o n t e m p l a t e s t h a t a

p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r c o u l d s e r v

e m o r e t h a n 1 0 0 y e a r s s i n c e s e n t e n c e s u n d e r t h i s

subsection must run consecutively. In other words, if a persistent felony offender

received two 100

- y e a r s e n t e n c e s u n d e r § 4 6

- 1 8

- 5 0 2 ( 2 )

, M C A

, t h o s e s e n t e n c e s m

u s t b e

s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v

e l y f o r a t o t a l o f 2 0 0 y e a r s

.

¶ 4 9 B a s e d o n t

h e f o r e g o i n g

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a

t o u r h o l d i n g i n G a i t h e

r w a s a n i n c o r r e c t

s t a t e m e n t o f t h e l a w a n d c o n t r a r y t o o u r p r i o r h o l d i n g s i n W a t s o n a n d F i t z p a t r i c k

, and

c o n t r a r y t o § 4 6

- 1 8

- 5 0 2 ( 4 )

, M C A

. C o n s e q u e n t l y

, w e o v

e r r u l e G a i t h e

r to th e extent that

it provides that the persistent felony offender statutes “ d o n o t g i v e [ d i s t r i c t c o u r t s ] t h e

a u t h o r i t y t o m

i x a n d m a t c h a [ p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r ] sentence with another felony

conviction occurring in the same proceeding and exceed the 100

- y ear limit for

imprisonme n t

. ” Gaither , ¶ 54.

¶ 5 0 W e a l s o o v

e r r u l e S t a t e v

. G u n d e r s o n

, 2 8 2 M o n

t

. 1 8 3

, 9 3 6 P

. 2 d 8 0 4 ( 1 9 9 7 )

, a n d

S t a t e v

. R o b i n s o n

, 2 0 0 8 M T 3 4

, 3 4 1 M o n t

. 3 0 0

, 1 7 7 P

. 3 d 4 8 8

, b e c a u s e t h e y t o o

p e r p e t u a t e i n c o r r e c t s t a

t e m e n t s o f t h e l a w r e g

a r d i n g p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r sentences.

¶ 5 1 T h e 1 9 9 7 G u n d e

r s o n c a s e i n v

o l v e d t h e s a m e d e f

e n d a n t a s i n t

h e i n s t a n t c a s e

. I n

t h a t e a r l i e r c a s e ( G u n d e r s o n I )

, G u n d e r s o n w a s s e n t e n c e d t o t w e n t y y e a r s i n p r i s o n f o r

s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u

t c o n s e n t

. H e w a s s e n t e n c e d t o a n a d d i t i o n a l t e n y e a r s a s a1 7

p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r

. G u n d e

r s o n I

, 2 8 2 M o n

t

. a t 1 8 7

, 9 3 6 P

. 2 d a t 8 0 6

. I n h i s

a p p e a l i n t

h a t c a s e

, G

u n d e r s o n c o r r e c t l y a r g

u e d t h a t p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r s e n t e n c e s

r e p l a c e t h e m a x i m

u m s e n t e n c e f

o r t h e u n d e r

l y i n g o f f e n s e a n d c a n n o t b e i m

p o s e d i n

a d d i t i o n t o a s e p a r a t e s e n t e n c e f o r t h e u n d e r l y i n g o f

f e n s e

. H o w e v

e r

, i n o u r a n a l y s i s o f

t h a t i s s u e

, w e m i s r e a d F i t z p a t r i c k and apparently ignored the language in that case that

s t a t e d : “ T h e s e n t e n c i n g p a r a m e t e r s o f § 4 6

- 1 8

- 5 0 2

, M C A

, r e p l a c e t h e m a x i m

u m

s e n t e n c e p r e s c r i b e d f

o r t h e o f f e n s e

. I t i s n o t a s e n t e n c e i n a d

d i t i o n t o the sentence for the

o f f e n s e

. ” F i t z p a t r i c k

, 2 4 7 M o n

t

. a t 2 0 8

, 8 0 5 P

. 2 d a t 5 8 6 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. T h u s

, w e

w r o n g l y h e l d i n Gunderson , that sentence s imposed based on a defen d a n t ’ s s t a t u s a s a

p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r a r e i n a d d i t i o n t o a n y s e p a r a t e s e n t e n c e s f o r t h e u n d e r

l y i n g

o f f e n s e s

. Gunderson I

, 282 Mont. at 187

- 88 , 936 P.2d at 806

- 07

.

¶ 5 2 I n a s i m i l a r f

a s h i o n

, w e p e r

p e t u a t e d t

h e e r r o r w e m a d e i n G u n d e r s o n i n o u r

h o l d i n g i n R o b i n s o n

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s e n t e n c e d R o b i n s o n t o t w o c o n c u r r e n t t e n

- y e a r

p r i s o n t e r m s f

o r t h e o f f e n s e s o f a s s a u l t o n a p e a c e o f f i c e r a l o n g w i t h t w o c o n s e c u t i v e t e n

y e a r p r i s o n t e r m s b e c a u s e R o b i n s o n w a s d e s i g n a t e d a p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r

. T h e

c o u r t a l s o s e n t e n c e d R o b i n s o n t o f

i v e y e a r s i n p r i s o n f

o r f a i l i n g t o r e g i s t e r a s a s e x u a l

o f f e n d e r a l o n g w i t h an additional five

- year sentence b e c a u s e o f R o b i n s o n ’ s p e r s i s t e n t

f e l o n y o f f e n d e r s t a t u s

. R o b i n s o n

, ¶ 6

. O n a p p e a l

, w h i l e w e p o i n t e d o u

t i n R o b i n s o n t h a

t

t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d b y i m p o s i n g t h e p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r s e n t e n c e s o n t o p o f t h e

s e n t e n c e s f

o r t h e a c t u a l o f f e n s e s t h e m s e l v

e s

, w e h e l d t

h a t because the sentences were, in

t o t a l

, w e l l b e l o w t h e m a x i m u m p r o v i d e d f

o r b y § 4 6

- 1 8

- 5 0 2 ( 2 )

, M C A

, t h e s e n t e n c e s

w e r e n o t i l l e g

a l

. Robinson

, ¶ 1 8

.1 8

¶ 5 3 W e e x

p l a i n e d t h e c o r r e c t p r o c e d u r e f

o r s e n t e n c i n g u n d e r t

h e p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y

o f f e n d e r s t a t u t e s i n State v. DeWitt

, 2 0 0 6 M T 3 0 2

, ¶ 1 1

, 3 3 4 M o n t

. 4 7 4

, 1 4 9 P

. 3 d 5 4 9

,

w h e n w e s t a t e d :

[ A ] p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r d e s i g

n a t i o n i s n o t i t s e l f a s e p a r a t e c r i m e

c a r r y i n g a s e p a r a t e s e n t e n c e

, b u t i s a p r o c e d u r a l s e n t e

n c e e n h a n c e m e n t

r e q u i r e d b y s t a t

u t e

. See § § 4 6

- 1 8

- 5 0 1 a n d

- 5 0 2

, M C A

. T h e r e i s n o t

,

t h e r e f o r e

, a s e p a r a t e s e n t e

n c e f o r t h e f e l o n y a n d a s e p a r a t e s e n t e n c e for the

persistent felony offender charge, but only one sentence pursuant to

§ 46

- 18

- 502, MCA.

¶ 5 4 B a s e d o n a c l e a r r e a d i n g o f § 4 6

- 1 8

- 5 0 2

, M C A

, a n d o u r p r i o r d e c i s i o n s i n W a t s o n

,

F i t z p a t r i c k

, a n d D e W

i t t

, we now hold that sentences imposed based on an offe n d e r ’ s

s t a t u s a s a p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r r e p l a c e t h e s e n

t e n c e f o r t h e u n d e r l y i n g f

e l o n y

. W e

f u r t h e r h o l d t h a

t w h e n a p e r s i s t e n t f

e l o n y o f f e n d e r i s c o n v i c t e d o n m u l t i p l e f e l o n y

c h a r g e s

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r

t c a n s e n t e

n c e t h e o f f e n d e r t o t h e m a x i m

u m s e n t e n c e a l l o w a b l e

o n e a c h c h a r g

e

. W e o v

e r r u l e o u r d e c i s i o n s i n G a i t h e r

, G u n d e

r s o n a n d R o b i n s o n to the

extent that they hold otherwise.

¶ 5 5 A c c o r d i n g

l y

, w e h o l d t

h a t

, i n t h e i n s t a n

t c a s e

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n

s e n t e n c i n g G

u n d e r s o n t o b o t h l i f

e i m p r i s o n m e n t o n t h e c h a r g e o f a t t e m

p t e d s e x u a l

i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u

t c o n s e n t a n d a t e r m o f 1 0 0 y e a r s a s a p e r s i s t e n t f e l o n y o f f e n d e r o n t h e

b u r g l a r y c h a r g

e

.

I s s u e 2

.

¶56 W h e t h e r t h e

r e w a s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u

p p o r t G u n d e

r s o n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n o n t

h e

c h a r g e o f a t t e m p t e d s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r

s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t

.

¶ 5 7 G u n d e r s o n c o n

t e n d s t h a t t h e r e w a s i n s u f

f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h a t t e m p t e d

s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u

t c o n s e n t i n t h i s c a s e b e c a u s e t h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e o f1 9

a t t e m p t e d o r i n t e n d e d p e n e t r a t i o n

. H e m a i n t a i n s t h a t i n o r d e r t o c o n s t i t

u t e a n a t t e m p t o f

t h e s p e c i f

i c o f f e n s e o f s e x

u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u

t c o n s e n t

, t h e r e m

u s t b e a t t e m

p t e d

p e n e t r a t i o n o r s p e c i f

i c e v i d e n c e t h a t p e n e t r a t i o n

, r a t h e r t h a n s e x u a l c o n t a c t

, w a s i n t e n d e d

.

T h e S t a t e c o u

n t e r s t h a t i t s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o v

e d t h a t G u n d e r s o n a c t e d u

p o n h i s i n t e n t t o r a p e

R a n d a l l a n d t h a t h e o n l y f a i l e d b e c a u s e o f R a n d a l l ’ s a c t i o n s

.

A. Standard of Review

¶ 5 8 W h e t h e r s u f

f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e e x i s t s t o c o n v

i c t a d e f e n d a n t i s u l t i m a t e l y a n a n a l y s i s

a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f t

h e l a w t o t

h e f a c t s a n d

, a s s u c h

, i s p r o p e r l y r e v i e w e d d e n o v

o

. State v.

Swann

, 2 0 0 7 M T 1 2 6

, ¶ 1 9

, 3 3 7 M o n t

. 3 2 6

, 1 6 0 P

. 3 d 5 1 1

. T h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w o f

s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e o n a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r

, u p o n v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t

m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r

o s e c u t i o n

, a n y r a t i o n a l t r i e r o f f a c t c o u l d h a v

e f o u n d t h e e s s e n t i a l

e l e m e n t s o f t h e c r i m e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

. State v. Fish

, 2 0 0 9 M T 4 7

, ¶ 2 7

, 3 4 9

M o n t

. 2 8 6

, 2 0 4 P

. 3 d 6 8 1 ( c i t i n g State v. Black

, 2 0 0 3 M T 3 7 6

, ¶ 2 9

, 3 1 9 M o n t

. 1 5 4

, 8 2

P

. 3 d 9 2 6 )

.

B

. D i s c u s s i o n

¶ 5 9 Section 45

- 4

- 103(1), MCA (2007)

, provides : “ A p e r s o n c o m m i t s t h e o f

f e n s e o f

a t t e m p t w h e n

, w i t h t

h e p u r p o s e t o c o m

m i t a s p e c i f i c o f f e n s e

, h e d o e s a n

y act toward the

commission of such offense. [Emphasis added.] ” However, not all acts toward the

commissi on of a crime are sufficient. T here must b e an “overt act” that reaches “ far

enough towards the accomplishment of the desired result to amount to the

c o m m e n c e m e n t o f t h e c o n s u m m a t i o n

. ” S t a t e v

. M a h o n e y

, 2 6 4 M o n t

. 8 9

, 9 7

, 8 7 0 P

. 2 d

6 5

, 7 0 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v

. R i b e r a

, 1 8 3 M o n

t

. 1

, 1 1

, 5 9 7 P

. 2 d 1 1 6 4

, 1 1 7 0 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ) ; s e e2 0

a l s o S t a t e v

. R a i n s , 53 Mont. 424, 164 P. 540 (1917). M o r e o v e r

, “ t h e r e m

u s t b e a t l e a s t

s o m e a p p r e c i a b l e f

r a g m e n t o f t h e c r i m e c o m m i t t e d

, a n d i t m

u s t b e i n s u c h p r o g

r e s s t h a t i t

w i l l b e c o n s u m

m a t e d u n l e s s i n t e r r

u p t e d b y c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e w i l l o f t

h e

a t t e m p t e r

. ” M a h o n e y

, 264 Mont. at 97, 870 P.2d at 70.

¶ 6 0 I n t h i s c a s e

, G

u n d e r s o n a d m

i t t e d t h a t h e w a t c h e d f

r o m a d i s t a n c e a s R a n d a l l

e n t e r e d h e r a p a r t m e n t a l o n e a t a r o u n d 2 : 0 0 a

. m

. H e a l s o a d m i t t e d t h a t h e k

n o c k e d o n h e r

d o o r a n d a s k e d t o u s e h e r t e l e p h o n e a s a r u s e t o g e t i n t o h e r a p a r

t m e n t

. W

h e n R a n d a l l

r e f u s e d t o a d m

i t h i m

, h e w a i t e d u n t i l s h e h a d t u r n e d o f f t h e l i g h t s a n d w e n t t o s l e e p

before entering her apartment unlawfully . Once inside the apartment, Gunderson locked

t h e d o o r b e h i n d h i m

, r e m o v e d h i s s h i r t a n d s h o e s

, w e n t t o R a n d a l l ’ s b e d r o o m

, s a t d o w

n

o n t h e b e d n e x t t o h e r

, t o u c h e d h e r o n h e r h i p a n d l e g

, a n d t r i e d t o p u l l o f f h e r u n d e r w e a r

.

R a n d a l l t e s t i f

i e d t h a t s h e a w o k e a b r

u p t l y t o s o m e o n e k i s s i n g t h e b a c k o f h e r n e c k a n d

p u l l i n g a t h e r u n d e r w e a r

. S h e i m m e d i a t e l y b e g a n t o s c r e a m a n d s t r

u g g l e

, b u t G u n d e r s o n

managed to pull one side of her underwear part way down. At one point, Gunderson

pinned Randall’s forearms to t he bed with her wrists near her ears.

¶ 6 1 T h e o n l y r e a s o n p e n e t r a t i o n d i d n o t o c c u r i n t h i s c a s e i s b e c a u s e R a n d a l l w a s a b l e

t o f i g h t G u n d e r s o n off. “It shall not be a defense to a charge of attempt that because of a

misapprehension of the circumstances it would have been impossible for the accused to

c o m m i t t h e o f f e n s e a t t e m

p t e d

. ” S e c t i o n 4 5

- 4

- 1 0 3 ( 2 )

, M C A ( 2 0 0 7 )

. A s t h e S t a t e p o i n t e d

out in its brief on appeal, clearly Gunderson misapprehended Randall’s strength and

determination to protect herself. Neve r t h e l e s s

, R a n d a l l ’ s a b i l i t y t o t h w a r t G u n d e r s o n ’ s

a t t e m p t t o r a p e h e r d i d n o t n e g a t e a l l o f t h e a f

f i r m a t i v e s t e p s h e t o o k t o d o s o

. A n d

,2 1

c on t rary to Gunderson’s argument that he did not intend to attempt penetration, that is

clearly what he intended when he attempted to remove Randall’s underwear.

¶ 6 2 Accordingly, we hold that t h e r e w a s s u f

f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t G u n d e r s o n ’ s

c o n v i c t i o n o n t

h e c h a r g e o f a t t e m p t e d s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t

.

Issue 3.

¶ 6 3 Whether Gunderson’s trial counsel provided effecti ve assistance.

¶ 6 4 G u n d e r s o n c o n

t e n d s t h a t h i s t r i a l c o u

n s e l p r o v i d e d i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e b e c a u s e

c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o r a i s e a n a b a n d o n m e n t d e f e n s e ; t o r e q u e s t l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d

- o f f e n s e j u r y

i n s t r u c t i o n s ; t o s u f

f i c i e n t l y i n v

e s t i g a t e ; t o c a l l r e q u e s t e d w i t n e s s e s ; t o i m p e a c h R a n d a l l ;

t o c h a l l e n g

e a n a l l e g e d l y b i a s e d j u r o r f

o r c a u s e ; t o o b

j e c t t o t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f d i s

j u n c t i v e

m e n t a l s t a t e j u r y i n s t r

u c t i o n s ; a n d t o o b

j e c t t o t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f 5 1 p a r

o l e c o n d i t i o n s

.

G u n d e r s o n a l s o c o n t e

n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d in not holding an evidentiary

hearing to inquire into Gunderson’s allegations of ineffectiveness.

¶ 6 5 T h e S t a t e m a i n t a i n s t h a t G u n d e r s o n f

a i l e d t o p r

o v e a n y o f h i s i n e f

f e c t i v e

a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l c l a i m s

. T h e S t a t e a l s o m a i n t a i n s t h a t a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g was

not necessary because the District C o u r t m a d e a n a d e q u a t e i n q u i r y i n t o G

u n d e r s o n ’ s

m i d

- t r i a l c o m

p l a i n t s a g a i n s t h i s c o u n s e l

.

A. Standard of Review

¶ 6 6 I n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l c l a i m s a r e m i x e d q u e s t i o n s o f l a w a n d f a c t t h a t

t h i s C o u r t r e v

i e w s d e n o v

o

. State v. Crosley

, 2 0 0 9 M T 1 2 6

, ¶ 2 7

, 3 5 0 M o n t

. 2 2 3

, 2 0 6

P

. 3 d 9 3 2 ( c i t i n g State v. Herrman

, 2 0 0 3 M T 1 4 9

, ¶ 1 8

, 3 1 6 M o n t

. 1 9 8

, 7 0 P

. 3 d 7 3 8 )

.

B

. D i s c u s s i o n2 2

¶ 6 7 B o t h t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t

u t i o n a n d A r t i c l e I I

, § 2 4

o f t h e M o n

t a n a C o n s t i t u

t i o n g u a r a n t e e a

n i n d i v i d u a l t

h e r i g h t t o t h e e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e

o f c o u n s e l i n a

l l c r i m i n a l p r

o s e c u t i o n s

. W

h e n w e r e v i e w c l a i m s o f i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e

o f c o u n s e l , we employ the two

- part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington

, 4 6 6 U

. S

.

6 6 8

, 1 0 4 S

. C t

. 2 0 5 2 ( 1 9 8 4 )

. Crosley

, ¶ 5 4 ( c i t i n g State v. Kougl , 2004 MT 243, ¶ 11,

323 Mont. 6, 97 P.3d 1095). T h i s t e s t r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t e s t a b l i s h t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s

p e r f o r m a n c e f

e l l b e l o w a n o b

j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s

, a n d t

h a t a r e a s o n a b l e

probability exists that

, b u t f o r c o u n s e l ’ s e r r o r s

, t h e r e s u l t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e

b e e n d i f f e r e n t

. Crosley

, ¶ 5 4

.

¶ 6 8 T o p r e v

a i l o n a n i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l c l a i m

, a d e f e n d a n t m u s t s a t i s f y

b o t h p r o n g s o f t h e S t r i c k

l a n d t e s t

. Whi tlow v. State

, 2 0 0 8 M T 1 4 0

, ¶ 1 1

, 3 4 3 M o n t

. 9 0

,

1 8 3 P

. 3 d 8 6 1 ( c i t i n g Adams v. State

, 2 0 0 7 M T 3 5

, ¶ 2 2

, 3 3 6 M o n t

. 6 3

, 1 5 3 P

. 3 d 6 0 1 )

.

T h u s

, i f a d e f

e n d a n t m a k e s a n i n s u f

f i c i e n t s h o w i n g r e g

a r d i n g o n e p r o n g o f t h e t e s t

, t h e r e

i s n o n e e d t o a d d r e s s t h e o t h e r p rong. W hitlow , ¶ 11.

¶ 6 9 W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f i r s t p r o n g o f t h e S t r i c k

l a n d test, “a reviewing court ‘must

indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of

r e a s o n a b l e p r

o f e s s i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e ’ a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t ‘ m

u s t o v e r c o m e t h e p r e s u m

p t i o n

t h a t

, u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, t h e c h a l l e n g e d a c t i o n m

i g h t b e c o n s i d e r e d s o u

n d t r i a l

s t r a t e g y

. ’ ” W

hitlow

, ¶ 2 1 ( q u o t i n g S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065).

With respect to the second prong of the Strickland test, “[a] reason able probability is a

probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. ” Crosley

, ¶ 5 5 ( q u o t i n g

State v. Harris

, 2 0 0 1 M T 2 3 1

, ¶ 1 9

, 3 0 6 M o n t

. 5 2 5

, 3 6 P

. 3 d 3 7 2 )

.2 3

¶ 7 0 B e f

o r e r e a c h i n g t h e m e r i t s o f a n i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l c l a i m o n d i r e c t

a p p e a l

, w e m

u s t d e t e r m

i n e w h e t h e r t h e a l l e g

a t i o n s a r e p r o p e r l y b e f

o r e u s

. See Hagen v.

State

, 1 9 9 9 M T 8

, ¶ 1 1

, 2 9 3 M o n t

. 6 0

, 9 7 3 P

. 2 d 2 3 3

. I f t h e c l a i m s a r e b a s e d o n f a c t s o f

r e c o r d

, t h e y m u s t b e r a i s e d o n d i r e c t a p p e a l

. H o w e v e r

, w h e r e t h e c l a i m s c a n n o t b e

d o c u m e n t e d f

r o m t h e r e c o r d

, t h o s e c l a i m s m u s t b e r a i s e d i n a p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t c o n v

i c t i o n

r e l i e f

. Hagen

, ¶ 1 2

. W e c o n c l u d e t h a t

, i n t h i s c a s e

, G

u n d e r s o n h a s r a i s e d b o t h t y p e s o f

c l a i m s

.

¶ 7 1 In general, “ [ t ] h e t e s t t o d e t e r m i n e i f a n i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m i s p r o p e r l y

b r o u g h t o n d i r e c t a p p e a

l i s w h e t h e r t h e r e c o r d c o n

t a i n s t h e a n s w e r t o ‘why’ counsel took

,

o r f a i l e d t o t a k e

, a c t i o n i n p r o v i d i n g a d e f

e n s e

. ” State v. Upshaw

, 2 0 0 6 M T 3 4 1

, ¶ 3 3

,

3 3 5 M o n t

. 1 6 2

, 1 5 3 P

. 3 d 5 7 9 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. W h i t e , 200 1 MT 149, ¶ 20, 306 Mont. 58, 30

P.3d 340). I f t h e r e c o r

d o n a p p e a l e x

p l a i n s “ w h y

, ” w e w i l l t

h e n a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e o n

a p p e a l

. I f

, h o w e v e r

, t h e c l a i m i s b a s e d o n m a t t e r s o u t s i d e t h e r e c o r d o n a p p e a

l

, w e m a y

refuse to address the issue on appeal and allow the defendant to file a postconviction

proceeding where the defendant can develop a record as to “why” counsel acted as

a l l e g e d

, t h u s a l l o w i n g t h e c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r c o u n s e l ’ s p e r f

o r m a n c e w a s

i n e f f e c t i v e o r m e r e l y a t a c t i c a l d e c i s i o n

. K o u g l

, ¶ 1 4 ( W e a l s o p o i n t e d o u t i n K o u g l that

it is sometimes unnecessary to ask “why” in the first instance as when counsel is faced

with an obligatory, and therefore non

- tactical, action. The question then is not “why” but

“ w h e t h e r ” c o u n s e l a c t e d

, a n d i f s o

, i f c o u n s e l a c t e d a d e q u a t e l y

. )

.

¶ 7 2 I n t h e c a s e s u b j u d

i c e , d uring an in

- chambers conference with the judge, Kelleher

r e s p o n d e d t o G

u n d e r s o n ’ s c o m

p l a i n t s t h a t h e f a i l e d t o s u f

f i c i e n t l y i n v

e s t i g a t e

, t o c a l l2 4

r e q u e s t e d w i t n e s s e s

, a n d t o i m p e a c h R a n d a l l

, b y e x

p l a i n i n g w

h y h e h a d t a k e n o r n o t

t a k e n t h e c o m

p l a i n e d o f a c t i o n

. T h

u s

, w e c o n c l u d e t

h a t t h e s e c l a i m s a r e r e c o r d b a s e d

a n d a r e p r o p e r l y b e f

o r e u s o n d i r e c t a p p e a

l

.

¶ 7 3 F i r s t

, G

u n d e r s o n c o m

p l a i n e d t h a

t K e l l e h e r f

a i l e d t o p r

o p e r l y i n v e s t i g a t e a n d t o

c a l l r e q u e s t e d w i t n e s s e s w

h e n K e l l e h e r f

a i l e d t o l o c a t e t h e t a x i d r i v e r t h a t G u n d e r s o n

c l a i m e d h a d d r i v

e n h i m t o t h e C r y s t a l B a r o n t h e n i g h t o f t h e i n c i d e n t

, o r t

h e b o u n c e r t h a

t

a l l e g e d l y k i c k e d G

u n d e r s o n o u t o f t h e b a r t h a t n i g h t

. Gunderson believed the taxi

driver’s and bou

n c e r ’ s t e s t i m o n y w o u l d b o l s t e r h i s c r e d i b i l i t y

. K e l l e h e r r e s p o n d e d t h a t

h e h a d d i f f i c u l t y w i t h t

h e s e i s s u e s b e c a u s e t h e d i s p a t c h l o g s f o r t h e c a b c o m

p a n i e s d i d

n o t s h o w a n y c a b b e i n g d i s p a t c h e d t o t h e a r e a n e a r G u n d e r s o n ’ s r e s i d e n c e o n t h e n i g h t i n

q u e s t i o n

, a n d t

h e b a r d i d n o t h a v

e a b o u n c e r f i t t i n g t h e d e s c r i p t i o n t

h a t G u n d e r s o n g

a v e

.

¶ 7 4 Eve n if Gunderson were able to demonstrate that Kelleher ’ s p e r f o r m a n c e i n t h i s

r e g a r d f e l l b e l o w a n o b

j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s

, G u n d e r s o n h a s f

a i l e d t o

e s t a b l i s h t h a

t h a d K e l l e h e r b e e n a b l e t o l o c a t e t h e t a x i d r i v e r o r t h e b o u

n c e r i n q u e s t i o n

, a

r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y e x i s t e d that “ the result of the proce eding would have been

d i f f e r e n t

. ” Crosl e

y , ¶ 54. Gunderson admitted that he was in Randall’s apartment that

ni g h t

, a n d t h e D N A e v i d e n c e t a k e n f r o m t h e b l o o d o n R a n d a

l l ’ s h a n d a n d u

n d e r n e a t h h e r

f i n g e r n a i l s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a

t G u n d e r s o n w a s t h e i n d i v

i d u a l t h a t R a n d a l l s c r a t c h e d a n d

t h r e w o u t o f h e r a p a r t m e n t

. W

h e t h e r o r n o t Gunderson took a cab to the Crystal Lounge

on the night in question and was kicked out of the bar b y t h e b a r ’ s b o u n c e r w o u l d n o t

h a v e c h a n g e d t h e o u t c o m e o f t h i s c a s e

.2 5

¶ 7 5 Second, Gunderson complained that Kelleher did not sufficiently cross

- exam ine

R a n d a l l b e c a u s e h e d i d n o t i m p e a c h h e r w i t h h e r p r i o r s t a t e m e n t t h a t G u n d e r s o n d i d n o t

s u c c e s s f u l l y r e m o v

e h e r u n d e r w e a r

. To that complaint, Kelleher responded:

We took a statement, my investigator and I took a statement from

her, and one of the questions was to the effect, “Did he succeed in pulling

off y our underwear at all?” And she said, “No, I made sure it stayed on.”

And in my judgment that was not a denial or a contradiction of what she

said. But in Mr. Gunderson’s judgment, “I made sure they stayed on, they

didn’t come off at all” does contradict her description in court

– or her

demonstration in court of having them pulled down some four inches or so

o n h e r h i p

, a

n d I d i d n ’ t a s k a b o u

t t h a t o n c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

. I f

e l t t h a t l i n e

o f q u e s t i o n i n g w a s d e m i n i m i s

, a n d i t c o u l d e a s i l y b e r e f u t e d b y s t a t i n g

,

w h i c h s h e d i d

, t h e o n l y r e a s o n h e r u n d e r w e a r d i d n ’ t c o m e o f f i s b e c a u s e

s h e v i g o r o u s l y r e s i s t e d t h e e f

f o r t t o h a v e t h a t c o m e o f

f

.

¶ 7 6 W e c o n c l u d e h e r e t h a t G u n d e r s o n f

a i l e d t o o v

e r c o m e t h e p r e s u m

p t i o n t h a t

, u n d e r

t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, t h e c h a l l e n g e d a c t i o n m

i g h t b e c o n s i d e r e d s o u n d t r i a l s t r a t e g y

. See

Whitlow

, ¶ 2 1

. Accordingly, w e f i n d n o m e r i t i n G

u n d e r s o n ’ s c o n t e

n t i o n s t h a

t t r i a l

c o u n s e l p r

o v i d e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e b y f

a i l i n g t o s u f

f i c i e n t l y i n v

e s t i g a t e

, t o c a l l

r e q u e s t e d w i t n e s s e s

, o r t o i m p e a c h R andall.

¶ 7 7 A s t o G

u n d e r s o n ’ s c o n t e

n t i o n s t h a t K e l l e h e r p r o v i d e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e

b e c a u s e h e f

a i l e d t o r a i s e a n a

b a n d o n m e n t d e f

e n s e ; t o r e q u e s t l e s s e r

- i n c l u d e d

- o f f e n s e

j u r y i n s t r

u c t i o n s ; t o c h a l l e n g

e a n a l l e g

e d l y b i a s e d j u r o r f

o r c a u s e ; t o o b

j e c t t o t h e

i m p o s i t i o n o f d i s

j u n c t i v e m e n t a l s t a t e j u r y i n s t r

u c t i o n s ; a n d t o o b

j e c t t o t h e i m

p o s i t i o n o f

51 parole conditions, c l a i m s s u c h a s t h e s e i n v o l v e “ o m i s s i o n s ” a n d a r e f r e q u e n t l y

i l l

- s u i t e d f

o r d i r e c t a p p e a l

. S t

a t e v

. T a y l o r , 2010 M T 9 4

, ¶ 2 1

, 3 5 6 M o n t

. 1 6 7

, 2 3 1 P

. 3 d

7 9 ( c i t i n g State v. Russell

, 2 0 0 8 M T 4 1 7

, ¶ 3 3

, 3 4 7 M o n t

. 3 0 1

, 1 9 8 P

. 3 d 2 7 1 ; State v.

Meyers

, 2 0 0 7 M T 2 3 0

, ¶ 1 0

, 3 3 9 M o n t

. 1 6 0

, 1 6 8 P

. 3 d 6 4 5 )

. T h e r e c o r d h e r e p r o v i d e s n o2 6

information on whether K e l l e h e r ’ s o m i s s i o n s w e r e r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r

d u e t o d e f i c i e n t p e r f

o r m a n c e

.

¶ 7 8 A c c o r d i n g

l y

, w e h o l d t h a

t t h e s e c l a i m s a r e b e s t s u i t e d f o r r e v i e w i n a

p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g a n d w e d i s m i s s t h e s e c l a i m s w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e

.

Issue 4.

¶ 7 9 W h e t h e r G u n d e

r s o n w a s e n t i t l e d t o a j u r

y i n s t r u c t i o n o n m i s

s i n g e v i d e n c e

.

¶ 8 0 G u n d e r s o n c o n

t e n d s t h a t h e w a s e n t i t l e d t o a j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n o n m

i s s i n g e v i d e n c e

a s a m a t t e r o f d u e p r o c e s s b e c a u s e t h e p o l i c e f a i l e d t o m a k e r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o c o n d u c t

a r a p e e x a m i n a t i o n o r t o c o l l e c t o t h e r p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e s u c h a s R a n d a l l ’ s b e d d i n g

.

G u n d e r s o n a r g

u e s t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d r e j e c t t h e r u l e s e t f o r t h i n S t a t e v

. S w a n s o n

, 2 2 2

M o n t

. 3 5 7

, 3 6 0

- 6 2

, 7 2 2 P

. 2 d 1 1 5 5

, 1 1 5 7

- 5 8 ( 1 9 8 6 )

, t h a t p o l i c e o f

f i c e r s h a v e n o d u t y t o

p r o c u r e e v

i d e n c e o n b e

h a l f o f a d e f

e n d a n t

, a s w e l l a s t h e s tandard set forth in A r i z o n a v

.

Y o u n g b l o o d

, 4 8 8 U

. S

. 5 1

, 1 0 9 S

. C t

. 3 3 3 ( 1 9 8 8 )

, t h a t a d e f e n d a n t m u s t s h o w b a

d f a i t h t o

p r o v e a d u e p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n w

h e n l o s t e v

i d e n c e i s o n l y p o t e n

t i a l l y e x c u l p a t o r y

.

¶ 8 1 The State contends that we should decline to conside r G u n d e r s o n ’ s a r g

u m e n t s o n

t h i s i s s u e b e c a u s e G

u n d e r s o n h a s c h a n g

e d h i s t h e o r y o n a

p p e a l r e g a r d i n g w h y t h e c o u r

t

s h o u l d h a v

e g i v e n t h e i n s t r

u c t i o n

. T h e S t a

t e p o i n t s o u t t h a

t G u n d e r s o n argued in the

District Court that the police had a duty to collect Rand a l l ’ s b e d d i n g a n d t o i n s i s t t h a t s h e

g o t o t h e h o s p i t a l a n d u

n d e r g o a r a p e e x a m i n a t i o n

. H o w e v e r

, G u n d e r s o n n o w a r g

u e s o n

a p p e a l t h a

t h i s p r o p o s e d i n s t r

u c t i o n s h o u l d h a v

e b e e n g i v e n b e c a u s e t h e p o l i c e f a i l e d t o

seize Randall’s underwear or swab her neck fo r G u n d e r s o n ’ s D N A

.

A

. S t a n d a r d o f R e v i e w2 7

¶ 8 2 We review jury instructions in criminal cases to determine whether “the jury

instructions, as a whole, fully and fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the

c a s e

. ” State v. Pol

, 2 0 0 8 M T 3 5 2

, ¶ 2 2

, 3 4 6 M o n t

. 3 2 2

, 1 9 5 P

. 3 d 8 0 7 ; State v.

Archambault , 2007 MT 26, ¶¶ 25

- 27, 336 Mont. 6, 152 P.3d 698. I f the instructions are

e r r o n e o u s i n s o m e a s p e c t

, t h e m i s t a k e m u s t p r e j u d i c i a l l y a f

f e c t t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s

s u b s t a n t i a l r i g

h t s i n o r d e r t o c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r

. State v. Nick

, 2 0 0 9 M T 1 7 4

, ¶ 8

,

3 5 0 M o n t

. 5 3 3

, 2 0 8 P

. 3 d 8 6 4

.

B. Discussion

¶ 8 3 In arguing that the District Court erred in failing to give a jury instruction

r e g a r d i n g “ m

i s s i n g e v i d e n c e

, ” G

u n d e r s o n e x

p a n d e d h i s t h e o r y o n a

p p e a l t o a r g u e t h a t t h e

S t a t e n o t o n l y e r r e d i n f

a i l i n g t o c o l l e c t t h e b e d d i n g a n d t o c o n d u c t a r a p e e x a m i n a t i o n o f

Randall, but also that the police should have collected Randall’s underwear and swabbed

h e r n e c k f

o r G u n d e r s o n ’ s D N A

. B e c a u s e t h e s e l a t t e r t w o a r g

u m e n t s w e r e m a d e f

o r t h e

f i r s t t i m e o n a p p e a l

, w e w i l l n o t a d d r e s s t h e m

. State v. Adgerson

, 2 0 0 3 M T 2 8 4

, ¶ 1 2

,

3 1 8 M o n t

. 2 2

, 7 8 P

. 3 d 8 5 0 ( c i t i n g State v. Peterson , 2002 MT 65, ¶ 24, 309 Mont. 199,

44 P.3d 499)

.

¶ 8 4 As to Gunderson’s theory regarding the failure to collect the bedd ing and to

conduct a rape examination of Randall, G u n d e r s o n h a s f

a i l e d t o s h o w h o w t h e c o u r t ’ s

r e f u s a l t o g i v e h i s p r o p o s e d j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n o n m

i s s i n g e v i d e n c e p r e

j u d i c i a l l y a f

f e c t e d

h i s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g

h t s

. G underson argued that if the police had gathere d the sheets from

R a n d a l l ’ s b e d

, i t w o u l d h a v e s h o w n a n a b s e n c e o f f

i g h t i n g o r r e s i s t a n c e o n t h e b e d

.

H o w e v e r

, O f f i c e r W i c h m a n t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e d i d n o t c o l l e c t t h e b e d d i n g b e c a u s e h e d i d2 8

n o t s e e a n y b l o o d o r o t h e r p h y s i c a l e v

i d e n c e o n t h e b e d d i n g

, a n d b e c a u s e R a n d a l l

t e s t i f i e d t h a t n o a c t

u a l p e n e t r a t i o n h a d o c c u r r e d

, t h u s n o b o d i l y f

l u i d s w o u l d b e p r e s e n

t

on the bedding

. C o n t r a r y t o G u n d e r s o n ’ s a s s e r t i o n s

, a s s u m i n g t h e p o l i c e h a d c o l l e c t e d

a n d t e s t e d t h e b e d d i n g

, t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e w a s n o b l o o d o n t h e b e d d i n g w o u l d n o t h a v e

proven an absence of fighting or resistance on the bed. It would only prove that there

was no blood on the bedding.

¶ 8 5 S i m

i l a r l y

, G u n d e r s o n a r g

u e d t h a t i f R a n d a l l h a

d s u b m i t t e d t o a f

u l l r a p e

e x a m i n a t i o n

, t h e e x a m i n a t i o n w o u l d h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t s h e h a d n o p h y s i c a l i n j u r i e s

.

H o w e v e r

, R a n d a l l

, O f

f i c e r W i c h m a n a n d D e t e c t i v e P a h a r i c k a l l t e s t i f

i e d t h a t R a n d a l l d i d

n o t h a v e a n y p h y s i c a l i n

j u r i e s

, t h u s a r a p e e x a m i n a t i o n w o u l d n o t h a v e p r o v e n a n y m o r e

exculpatory than Randall’s and the officers’ testimony.

¶ 8 6 Furthermore, this is not a case where the evidence was lost or destroyed while in

t h e S t a t e ’ s c u s t o d y

. T h e S t a t e h a d n o k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e s e i t e m s w o u l d b e i m p o r t a n t t o

t h e d e f e n s e a s G u n d e r s o n n e v

e r r e q u e s t e d a

n y o f t h i s e v

i d e n c e u n t i l t r i a l

.

¶ 8 7 Because of the clearly non

- exculpatory nature of the evidence in this case as

d e m o n s t r a t e d a b o v

e

, w e d e c l i n e t o a d d r e s s G u n d e r s o n ’ s a r g

u m e n t s t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d

r e j e c t t h e r

u l e t h a t p o l i c e o f

f i c e r s h a v e n o d u t y t o p r

o c u r e e v i d e n c e o n b e

h a l f o f a

defendant, or the standard that a defendant must show bad faith to prove a due process

violation when lost evidence is only potentially exculpatory.

¶ 8 8 Accordingly, we hold that the District Court did not err in refusing to give

G u n d e r s o n ’ s j u r y i n s t r

u c t i o n o n m

i s s i n g e v i d e n c e

.

I s s u e 5

.2 9

¶ 8 9 Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Gunderson’s motion

for a mistrial after a prospective juror ’ s c o m m e n t

s i n a d v e r t e n t l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t

G u n d e r s o n h a d b e e n i n j a i l

.

¶ 9 0 G u n d e r s o n a r g

u e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n f o r a m i s t r i a l

b e c a u s e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n s o l i c i t e d b y t

h e S t a t e d u r i n g v

o i r d i r e t h a

t o n e o f t h e p r o s p e c t i v

e

jurors was a county jailor and was familiar with Gunderson prejudiced Gunderson’s right

to a fair trial by creating the impression in the jurors’ minds that Gunderson must be a

trouble maker. The State maintains that the District Court correctly denied Gunderson’s

motion for a mistrial because the prospective j uror ’ s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e k n e w G u n d e r s o n

w a s n o t e x

p r e s s e d n e g

a t i v e l y a n d d i d n o t t a i n

t t h e j u r y p a n e l

.

A. Standard of Review

¶ 9 1 W e r e v i e w t h e d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n f o r a m i s t r i a l t o d e t e r m

i n e w h e t h e r t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n

. State v. Steele

, 2 0 0 4 M T 2 7 5

, ¶ 1 5

, 3 2 3 M o n t

. 2 0 4

, 9 9 P

. 3 d

2 1 0

.

B. Discussion

¶ 9 2 During voir dire, the prosecutor asked whether any of the jurors knew Kelleher,

G u n d e r s o n ’ s d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l

. J

u r o r T h o r s o n r a i s e d h i s h a n d

, a n d t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c h a n g

e

o c c u r r e d :

M S

. M c K

I T T R I C K [ t h e p r o s e c u t o r ] : M r

. T h o r s o n

. I s e e y o u

r a i s i n g y o u r h a n d

. H o w d o y o u k n o w h i m ?

M R

. T H O R S O N : I w o r k a t t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t y D e t e n t i o n

F a c i l i t y

. H e c o m e s i n a n d s e e s a l o t o f c l i e n t s

. M S

. M c K

I T T R I C K : A

r e y o u p e r s o n a l f

r i e n d s

, g o i n g o u t t o d i n

n e r

,

t h i n g s l i k e t h a t w i t h M r

. K e l l e h e r ?

M R

. T H O R S O N : N o

.3 0 M S

. M c K I T T R I C K : D o y o u t h i n k y o u r k n o w l e d g e o f M r

. K e l l e h e r

o r y o u r f r i e n d s h i p w i t h h i m w o u l d a f f e c t y o u r a b i l i t y t o s i t o n t h i s c a s e a n d

d e c i d e t h e c a s e f

a i r l y a n d i m

p a r t i a l l y ?

M R

. T H O R S O N : N o

. M S

. M c K I T T R I C K : I g u e s s g o h e r e [ s i c ]

. B r i n g u p t h e f a c t t h a t

y o u a r e a Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t y d e t e n t i o n o f f i c e r

. A r e y o u f a m i l i a r w i t h M r

. G u n d e r s o n ?

M R

. T H O R S O N : Y e s

, I a m

. M S

. M c K

I T T R I C K : A

n d w o u l d t

h a t k n o w l e d g e o f M r

. G

u n d e r s o n affect you at all to sit on this case?

MR. THORSON: No.

MS. McKITTRICK: An d I imagine that when I go through a list of

Billings Police Department officers, you’re going to recognize many of

them. Maybe we could talk about that more at that point in time.

¶ 9 3 Thorson never stated that he knew Gunderson because Gunders on had been

in carcerated, and Thorson ’ s a n s w e r s d i d n o t r e v e a l a n y t h i n g n e g a t i v e a b o u t G

u n d e r s o n o r

c r e a t e a n y b i a s t o w a r d s G u n d e r s o n

. I

n f a c t

, T h o r s o n s p e c i f

i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a

t k n o w i n g

G u n d e r s o n d i d n o t i n a n y w a y a f f e c t h i s a b i l i t y t o b e f

a i r a n d i m p a r t i a l

.

¶ 9 4 H e r e

, G

u n d e r s o n h a s f

a i l e d t o s h o w h o w t

h e D i s t r i c t C o u r

t m a y h a v

e a b u s e d i t s

d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n f o r a m i s t r i a l

. G u n d e r s o n h i m s e l f v

o l u n t e e r e d d

u r i n g h i s

t e s t i m o n y t h a t h e h a

d b e e n i n j a i l f

o r s e v e n m o n t h s a w a i t i n g t r i a l i n t h i s m a t t e r

.

M o r e o v e r

, m o s t p r o s p e c t i v

e j u r o r s a r e a w a r e t h a t a d e f e n d a n t c h a r g

e d w i t h a c r i m e m a y

have spent some time in jail.

¶ 9 5 Accordingly, we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying

G u n d e r s o n ’ s m o t i o n f

o r a m i s t r i a l

.

Issue 6.

¶ 9 6 W h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C

o u r t e r r e d w h e n i t f a i l e d t o r e m o v e a p r o s

p e c t i v e j u r o r f

o r

c a u s e

.3 1

¶ 9 7 During voir dire, one juror stated that she would “probably have more of a bias

t h a t [ G u n d e r s o n ] i s [ g

u i l t y ] s i m p l y b e c a u s e h e ’ s c h a r g

e d

. ” K e l l e h e r q u e s t i o n e d t h i s j u r o r

a t l e n g t h r e g a r d i n g h e r s t a t e m e n t a n d s h e e v e n t u a l l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t s h e t h o u g h t s h e c o u l d

b e f a i r

. K e l l e h e r d i d n o t c h a l l e n g e t h i s j u r o r f

o r c a u s e a

n d

, i n s t e a d

, r e m o v

e d h e r w i t h a

preemptory challenge.

¶ 9 8 O n a p p e a l

, G

u n d e r s o n a r g

u e s f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d h a v e

r e m o v e d t h i s j u r o r f

o r c a u s e b e c a u s e s h e i n d i c a t e d a b i a s a g a i n s t h i m

. S i n c e G

u n d e r s o n

d i d n o t r a i s e t h i s i s s u e i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t

, h e n o w a s s e r t s t h a t w e s h o u l d i n v o k e t h e

c o m m o n l a w p l a i n e r r o r d o c t r i n e t o r e v i e w t h i s a l l e g

e d e r r o r

.

¶ 9 9 T h i s C o u r t g

e n e r a l l y w i l l n o t a

d d r e s s i s s u e s r a i s e d f

o r t h e f i r s t t i m e o n a p p e a l

.

State v. Longfello w

, 2 0 0 8 M T 3 4 3

, ¶ 1 9

, 3 4 6 M o n t

. 2 8 6

, 1 9 4 P

. 3 d 6 9 4

. H o w e v e r

, w h e n

c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t s i n v

o k e t h e i r f

u n d a m e n t a l r i g

h t s

, w e m a y c h o o s e t o r e v i e w a c l a i m

u n d e r t h e c o m m o n l a w p l a i n e r r o r d o c t r i n e “ w h e r e f a i l i n g t o r e v i e w t h e c l a i m e d e r r o r

m a y r e s u l t i n a m a n i f

e s t m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e

, m a y l e a v

e u n s e t t l e d t

h e q u e s t i o n o f t

h e

f u n d a m e n t a l f

a i r n e s s o f t h e t r i a l o r p r o c e e d i n g s

, o r m a y c o m p r o m i s e t h e i n t e g

r i t y o f t h e

j udicial process. ” S t a t e v

. T a y l o r , 2010 M T 9 4

, ¶ 1 2

, 3 5 6 M o n t

. 1 6 7

, 2 3 1 P

. 3 d 7 9 ( c i t i n g

State v. Jackso n

, 2 0 0 9 M T 4 2 7

, ¶ 4 2

, 3 5 4 M o n t

. 6 3

, 2 2 1 P

. 3 d 1 2 1 3

, c e r t

. d e n i e d

,

_ _

_

U

. S

.

_ _ _ ,

_ _

_ S

. C t

.

_ _

_ , 1 7 6 L

. E d

. 2 d 1 1 9 7 ( 2 0 1 0 ) )

. W h e n a d e f e n d a n t r a i s e s t h e p l a i n

e r r o r d o c t r i n e t o r e q

u e s t r e v i e w o f i s s u e s t h a t w e r e n o t o b j e c t e d t o a

t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r

t

l e v e l

, t h i s C o u r t ’ s r e v i e w i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y

. State v. Gra y

, 2 0 0 4 M T 3 4 7

, ¶ 1 3

, 3 2 4 M o n t

.

3 3 4

, 1 0 2 P

. 3 d 1 2 5 5 ( c i t i n g State v. Daniels

, 2 0 0 3 M T 2 4 7

, ¶ 2 0

, 3 1 7 M o n t

. 3 3 1

, 7 7 P

. 3 d

2 2 4 )

. M o r e o v

e r

, w e h a v e r e p e a t e d l y s t a t e d t h a t w e w i l l u s e p l a i n e r r o r r e v i e w s p a r i n g l y3 2

o n a c a s e

- b y

- c a s e b a s i s

. State v. Hayde n

, 2 0 0 8 M T 2 7 4

, ¶ 1 7

, 3 4 5 M o n t

. 2 5 2

, 1 9 0 P

. 3 d

1 0 9 1 ( c i t i n g

State v. Roslin g , 2008 MT 62, ¶ 77, 342 Mont. 1, 180 P.3d 1102).

¶ 1 0 0 T h e p l a i n e r r o r d o c t r i n e e s t a b l i s h e s a t w o

- p a r t t e s t

, w i t h t h e b u r

d e n o n t h e c r i m i n a l

d e f e n d a n t t o m e e t b o t

h p a r t s o f t

h a t t e s t

. S t

a t e v

. W h i p p l e , 2001 MT 16, ¶ 3 2

, 3 0 4 M o n t

.

1 1 8

, 1 9 P

. 3 d 2 2 8

. U

n d e r t h i s t e s t

, w e a s k t w o q u e s t i o n s : ( 1 ) d o e s t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r

i m p l i c a t e a f

u n d a m e n t a

l r i g h t ; a n d ( 2 ) w o u l d f

a i l u r e t o r e v

i e w t h e a l l e g

e d e r r o r r e s u l t i n

o n e o f t h e c o n s e q

u e n c e s m e n t i o n e d a b o v

e

. Taylor

, ¶ 1 4

. F u r t h e r m o r e

, a m e r e a s s e r t i o n

t h a t c o n s t i t u

t i o n a l r i g h t s a r e i m

p l i c a t e d o r t

h a t f a i l u r e t o r e v

i e w t h e c l a i m e d e r r o r m a y

r e s u l t i n a m a n i f

e s t m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o i m

p l i c a t e t h e p l a i n e r r

o r

d o c t r i n e

. Whipple , ¶ 34

.

¶ 1 0 1 H e r e

, G

u n d e r s o n f

a i l e d t o m e e t h i s b u r d e n t o s h o w t h a t p l a i n e r r o r r e v i e w i s

a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h i s c a s e

, a n d w e a r e n o t “ f i r m l y c o n v i n c e d ” t h a

t f a i l i n g t o a d d r e s s t h e

c l a i m e d e r r o r w o u l d r e s u l t i n a m a n i f e s t m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e

, l e a v

e u n s e t t l e d t

h e

q u e s t i o n o f t h e f

u n d a m e n t a l f

a i r n e s s o f t h e t r i a l o r p r o c e e d i n g s

, o r c o m p r o m i s e t h e

integrity of the judicial p rocess.

¶ 1 0 2 Accordingly, we decline to apply the plain error doctrine to review G u n d e r s o n ’ s

c l a i m t h a t t

h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d w h e n i t f a i l e d t o r e m o v

e a p r o s p e c t i v

e j u r o r f o r c a u s e

.

Issue 8.

¶ 1 0 3 Whether the District Court erred in instructing the jury on the def initions of

“ p u r p o s e l y ” a n d “ k

n o w i n g l y

. ”

¶ 1 0 4 Gunderson contends that the District Court erred when it gave the jury disjunctive

d e f i n i t i o n s o f “ p u r

p o s e l y ” a n d “ k

n o w i n g l y ” t h a t d e f

i n e d t h e t e r m s a s r e l a t i n g e i t h e r t o3 3

conduct or to result. Gunderson did not o b j e c t t o t h e c o u r t ’ s i n s t r u c t i o n s a t t h e t i m e

, a n d

h e n o w a r g

u e s t h a t w e s h o u l d i n v

o k e t h e c o m m o n l a w p l a i n e r r o r d o c t r i n e t o r e v

i e w this

alleged error.

¶ 1 0 5 O n c e a g

a i n G u n d e r s o n f

a i l e d t o m e e t h i s b u r

d e n t o s h o w t h a

t p l a i n e r r o r r e v i e w i s

a p p r o p r i a t e

. A s w e s t a t e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s i s s u e

, a m e r e a s s e r t i o n t h a t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s

a r e i m p l i c a t e d o r t h a

t f a i l u r e t o r e v

i e w t h e c l a i m e d e r r o r m a y r e s u l t i n a m a n i f e s t

m i s c a r r i a g

e o f j u s t i c e i s n o t s u f

f i c i e n t t o i n v

o k e t h e p l a i n e r r o r d o c t r i n e

. Whipple , ¶ 3 4.

¶ 1 0 6 Acc ordingly, we decline to apply the plain error doctrine to review Gunderson’s

claim that the District Court erred in instructing the jury on the definitions of “purposely”

a n d “ k n o w i n g l y

. ”

Issue 9.

¶ 1 0 7 Whether the District Court erred in imposing 51 conditions a s part of

G u n d e r s o n ’ s s e n t e n c e i n t h e e v e n t h e i s e v e r r e l e a s e d t o t

h e c o m m u n i t

y

.

¶ 1 0 8 I n s e n t e n c i n g G

u n d e r s o n

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e m a r k e d t h a t i t h a d n e v e r s e e n a

d e f e n d a n t m o r e d e s e r v

i n g o f a l i f

e s e n t e n c e t h a n G

u n d e r s o n

, h e n c e t

h e c o u r t m a d e i t

q u i t e c l e a r that it never wanted Gunderson to be released from prison. Nevertheless, the

court imposed the conditions recommended in the PSI should any portion of Gunderson’s

sentence be suspended.

¶ 1 0 9 O n a p p e a l

, G

u n d e r s o n c o n t e

n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i m

p o s e d a n i l l e g

a l s e n t e n c e

w h e n i t i m p o s e d 5 1 c o n d i t i o n s o n h i m

. T h e S t a t e c o n c e d e s t h a t f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l p u r

p o s e s

t h e c o n d i t i o n s i m

p o s e d o n G

u n d e r s o n a m o u n

t t o c o n d i t i o n s o f p a r o l e

, a n d w i t h t h e

e x c e p t i o n o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s s p e c i f i c a l l y a u t h o r i z e d b y s t a t

u t e

, t h e c o u r

t d i d n o t h a v

e t h e3 4

authority to impose the conditions b e c a u s e n o p o r t i o n o f G u n d e r s o n ’ s s e n t e n c e w a s

s u s p e n d e d

. State v. Burch , 2008 MT 118, ¶ 36, 342 Mont. 499, 182 P.3d 66.

¶ 1 1 0 A c c o r d i n g

l y

, w e h o l d t h a

t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n i m p o s i n g o n G

u n d e r s o n

t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s n o t a

u t h o r i z e d b y s t a t u

t e

, a n d w e r e m a n d t o t

h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o s t r i k e

the unauthorized conditions.

¶ 1 1 1 A f f i r m e d i n p a r t

, r e v

e r s e d i n p a r t a

n d r e m a n d e d f

o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t

w i t h t h i s O p i n i o n

.

/ S / J A M E S C

. N E L S O N

W e C o n c u r :

/ S / M I K E M c G R A T H

/ S / W

. W I L L I

A M L E A P H A R T

/ S / J I M R I C E

/ S / P A T R I C I A C O T T E R

/ S / M I C H A E L E W H E A T

/ S / B R I A N M O R R I S